ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparison of Retention Rates of Pit and Fissure Sealants Using Flowable Composite and Moisture-tolerant Resin-based Sealant: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and background: To compare and evaluate the retention rate of flowable composite and moisture-tolerant pit and fissure sealant on pits and fissures of molars. Materials and methods: A split-mouth design was chosen on 58 pediatric patients on their mandibular first permanent molars. In group I [Embrace WetBond sealant (EWS) group], the right lower permanent first molar was sealed. In group II [Estelite Flowable Composite (EFC) group], the left lower permanent first molar was treated. After application, clinical evaluation was done at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Postoperatively, the teeth were clinically evaluated for retention. Results: The complete retention rates of the EWS and EFC groups in our study at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were as follows: EWS group-100%, 100%, 98.3%, 81%; EFC group-67.2%, 46.6%, 32.2%, 10.3%. The Chi-square test showed a statistically significant association between the retention rates of EWS and EFC at 12 months, with a Chi-square value of 63.127 and a Conclusion: The Embrace WetBond (EWS) sealant group showed better retention over a period of time when compared to that of EFC. Clinical significance: Composite materials with good retentive properties and which have the added advantage of higher strength will be able to withstand masticatory forces and hence prevent their loss from the tooth surfaces. How to cite this article: Adapa DSSK A, Ayilliath A, Ephraim R,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.